Enhancing employees' innovation activity through motivational factors

“Insightful Encounters - Regional Development and Practice–Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th, 2008, Porvoo - Borgå, Finland
interviews was given collectively. The feedback was given on purpose in a way that the most
common problems were stressed and no individual respondent could be identified.
Experimental and observational data was also acquired in the forms of diaries. Two of the
research team wrote regularly their observations of the sessions held. Also the literal material that
the participants produce during sessions is used as a data. After every contact session the
participants received a memo of the things that had been on the table in the session. In the next
session the same thing were repeated briefly and reflected orally. After six months the
participants were given an assignment to write down their opinions of what had happened in the
process and what they expected to happen next. From eight months to a year after the first
interviews group reflections of the process are to be held. The follow-up reflection gives not only
information to researchers, but also informs the practitioners if any change has happened.
Description of the AR environment
Nature of the leadership in the case company is quite traditional but the atmosphere is changing
gradually. Current leader and manager are still responding of the weight that former leader has
been created over the years. And to be honest, the former leader is still able to affect on daily
works in the organisation. The former leader has been very demanding and challenging character
but he has also made the company successful for many years. Employees’ perceptions of the
former leader are respect as well as gratitude.
Though, the next generation’s interest to sustain in the competitive business environment is
obvious along with all employees. And some changes can be clearly seen. First of all, there are
two new executive positions and their roles differ noticeable. Managing Director (Leader) is
focused on people and innovation processes and he is operating mainly from headquarter.
President (Manager) is more responsible for finance and systems, and he is shifting location
between one unit of the company and headquarter. With this separate interest areas both
executives are able to influence on different kind of people and appeal various emotional levels.
The company has not been involved in many projects with other organisation, especially
concerning innovation processes. Therefore, this project has had high expectations since
executives have agreed on this and have wanted to participation from employees in order to
improve and develop their daily work together. The participants were 12 salespeople and two
managers. The effort that all of them have made to join the required meetings is essential. The
busy schedules rarely gives the opportunity to meet and purely develop own duties. Also in these
meetings all salespeople have achieved, at least to some extent, unique attention from executives
and have had extra support for their ideas as well as demands.
The leader had a need and idea for the project already before starting the process. He was hoping
for receiving customer information from the salespeople better. He got the required figures but
the weak signals of possible near future happenings were missing. When salespeople came from
customer back to the office, they might tell the managers the important observations what they
had seen, little but important details which in repeated by many customers could indicate near
future changes in demand. But usually because of the tight schedule of the managers this
knowledge never came out.
In spite of the fact that the leader had the need in the beginning of the process, he had no means
just a blurry vision of what the result could be. Therefore a process where the salespeople could
define themselves the need and the tools with which they wanted to operate. During the action